Michael Brown shooting II

[Wolrab]

Why? Because you declare it so?
The GJ investigation was as biased in favor of Wilson as they come. It's ludicrous to claim that had meaning.

As for the DoJ, they found Ferguson police had a history of racism. You can pretend Wilson was exempt from that finding. It ignores the evidence it was more likely he was affected than not.

You are doing exactly that. Do you not see that?

 

[Upchurch]

Not goalpost moving. Statements of fact, first came the burning and looting then came the police anti-riot response. Quite the opposite of what Mumbles claims.

A few of issues:

First, without evidence, your claim falls victim to Hitchens's razor.

Second, you don't get to just declare something is a fact. You must provide evidence for it.

Third, here is what you were saying before you moved the goal posts:

This isn't a chicken or the egg question Upchurch, which came first: the looting and burning or the cops in riot gear and military vehicles?

On other words, you weren't asking for a "police anti-riot response", you were merely asking for cops in riot gear and military vehicles. Of course, a "police anti-riot response" did not come first. If it had, it would not have been a response. You've shifted the goal posts.

Mumbles provided evidence of military vehicles, shot guns, and dogs at least by 6:25 PM on August 9. You've provided bumpkis for rioting and looting before that. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

You are upset that exculpatory evidence was presented to the GJ, yes? Now you're trying to walk that back?

Not at all. I've been consistent in my position. That it doesn't match your straw man is, well, the nature of a straw man.

 

[Giz]

I don't know what you are talking about.

Wilson's first job was in a documented racist department. His second job was in a documented racist department.

So he learned on the job in a racist department and has been in one since.

Do you think it's more likely he took on the racist attitudes of his coworkers? Or do you think it's more likely he remained 'different' from the cops he worked with his entire career?

Because I think the former is not only more likely, there's plenty of evidence people are heavily influenced by the attitudes of their coworkers.

What isn't a skeptical position is always assuming the default position that must be disproved is, 'not racist'.

Ah, guilt by association. Kind of how 'every Chicago politician should be in jail'?

(Or we could judge people by whether there is any evidence against them as individuals... )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are doing exactly that. Do you not see that?

No, I have supported my position. Wilson has never not worked in a racist police department. People want to dismiss that as if it has no evidentiary weight. But it does have evidentiary weight.

As for the question, did it play a role in Brown's death? I believe it likely did. I believe the witness that said Wilson's first interaction was to yell at the two to get the 'f' on the sidewalk, or whatever the wording was. I believe their failure to kowtow likely pissed Wilson off.

I agree there was a struggle involving the gun which went off. However, it's just as likely Brown was pushing the gun away as trying to take it away. It's a moot point. Brown got shot and ran.

There's nothing that explains Brown turning around unless he was being shot at. Whether the one bullet hit him in the arm from behind or not, I don't know. Maybe hearing the gun was enough. Again that is moot. We know Brown turned around and was coming back toward Wilson.

Here's where there is contention. I think head-down charging is much less likely than getting down to surrender or falling down. If Brown turned around because he changed his mind and wanted to attack Wilson, why would he do that if Wilson wasn't shooting at him? What made Brown go from running away to I'm going to kill that cop? That's ludicrous.

The one thing that would make Brown turn around was being shot at. And if no bullet had yet hit him, why would that make him turn around and charge at Wilson? Wilson was too far away and was shooting his gun. You turn around to give up.

I heard those witnesses myself. I don't think a biased prosecutor nit-piking flaws in their testimony without a representative of Brown's questioning Wilson is a fair trial. Not to mention Wilson had a chance to see all the evidence and change his story to fit that evidence before ever being questioned.

I can see Wilson incompetently continuing to shoot. I can see him shooting in anger. I can't see anything about the scenario of Brown charging at Wilson makes any sense.

I know what I'm basing my conclusions on. If there is any confirmation bias going on here, it's clearly reflected by those calling the GJ a fair trial and ignoring the fact Wilson has never not worked in a racist department.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah, guilt by association. Kind of how 'every Chicago politician should be in jail'?

(Or we could judge people by whether there is any evidence against them as individuals... )

No, but clearly you'd like to ignore certain facts.

 

[tyr_13]

That's funny, the video saw featured him running away fraticallyas the cop chased him into a comercial area shooting his gun.
Maybe she was thinking of the dude tat got maced after some shirtless white guy tried to fight him. Or the black guy that got punched out by a (black) cop for smoking a cigarette. Or the guy that got tasered in front of his kids for sitting on a public bench. Or the old lady tht got tazed in the back because she wanted to know why two teens were being arrested for walking down a street where there was *no sidewalk to walk on*. Or the X number of stories she's seen or heard that weren't recorded.

Told ya, I'm not playing these games.

You are playing games however, and it hurts the overall message.

If the highlighted plus the guy being black is enough for you to put it on a list of brutality against blacks, then the list is meaningless. Besides that, making a very broad swath of incidence of violence against black people being racially motivated does increase the fear of people like that girl. You tell her there was a man with a toy sword who was shot because he was black, she'll believe you even though it's not true. You tell her a man was shot even though his hands were up simply because he was walking in a street, she'll believe you, even though that's not true either. But others will look at those and dismiss listening to your entire list because they already know it's not true. Don't cry wolf. It might feel like the more incidents you can pile together the better a case you have, but in mixing in poor quality ones you give people an excuse to tune out.

Keep in mind, there is a long list of actual racially motivated incidents that have good evidence for being so, and you have no need to inflate the list with questionable ones. Besides that, the evidence the DoJ lays out is much more better quality evidence than anecdotes. It is very difficult to prove any specific incident is racially motivated, or that it would have played out differently with different races. After all, we can't run the incident with a control. That's why aggregate numbers and analysis are so important.

Looking at those, and even keeping in mind confounding factors, it's fairly easy to prove there is still far too much racism effecting things. Racism is still a problem, and we can still make advances on in. But that doesn't mean any given incident is racism. That doesn't mean that people who disagree with your assessment that any given incident is racism is being racist themselves, disagrees with your overall point, or is 'playing games'.

Long story short, getting the details right is important.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It really is hard to believe my eyes, reading that guilt by association is valid when used against police but terrible, terrible when used against black people.

 

[Mike!]

No, I have supported my position. Wilson has never not worked in a racist police department. People want to dismiss that as if it has no evidentiary weight. But it does have evidentiary weight.

As for the question, did it play a role in Brown's death? I believe it likely did. I believe the witness that said Wilson's first interaction was to yell at the two to get the 'f' on the sidewalk, or whatever the wording was. I believe their failure to kowtow likely pissed Wilson off.

I agree there was a struggle involving the gun which went off. However, it's just as likely Brown was pushing the gun away as trying to take it away. It's a moot point. Brown got shot and ran.

There's nothing that explains Brown turning around unless he was being shot at. Whether the one bullet hit him in the arm from behind or not, I don't know. Maybe hearing the gun was enough. Again that is moot. We know Brown turned around and was coming back toward Wilson.

Here's where there is contention. I think head-down charging is much less likely than getting down to surrender or falling down. If Brown turned around because he changed his mind and wanted to attack Wilson, why would he do that if Wilson wasn't shooting at him? What made Brown go from running away to I'm going to kill that cop? That's ludicrous.

The one thing that would make Brown turn around was being shot at. And if no bullet had yet hit him, why would that make him turn around and charge at Wilson? Wilson was too far away and was shooting his gun. You turn around to give up.

I heard those witnesses myself. I don't think a biased prosecutor nit-piking flaws in their testimony without a representative of Brown's questioning Wilson is a fair trial. Not to mention Wilson had a chance to see all the evidence and change his story to fit that evidence before ever being questioned.

I can see Wilson incompetently continuing to shoot. I can see him shooting in anger. I can't see anything about the scenario of Brown charging at Wilson makes any sense.

I know what I'm basing my conclusions on. If there is any confirmation bias going on here, it's clearly reflected by those calling the GJ a fair trial and ignoring the fact Wilson has never not worked in a racist department.

Any evidence, other than the so called 'witnesses', that this happened in the fashion you claim, at all?

 

[Wolrab]

Any evidence, other than the so called 'witnesses', that this happened in the fashion you claim, at all?

If she typed it, it is evidence. End of story.

 

[WildCat]

A few of issues:

First, without evidence, your claim falls victim to Hitchens's razor.

Second, you don't get to just declare something is a fact. You must provide evidence for it.

Third, here is what you were saying before you moved the goal posts:

​

On other words, you weren't asking for a "police anti-riot response", you were merely asking for cops in riot gear and military vehicles. Of course, a "police anti-riot response" did not come first. If it had, it would not have been a response. You've shifted the goal posts.

Mumbles provided evidence of military vehicles, shot guns, and dogs at least by 6:25 PM on August 9. You've provided bumpkis for rioting and looting before that. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?



Not at all. I've been consistent in my position. That it doesn't match your straw man is, well, the nature of a straw man.

Do you understand what the word "and" means?

 

[Ammonitida]

There's nothing that explains Brown turning around unless he was being shot at.

Of course there is. Wilson gave chase and repeatedly told Brown to stop. Having just been shot in the thumb, he probably thought he might be shot in the back if he continued running. So he stopped and turned to face Wilson, perhaps with the intention of surrendering (consistent with witness 104, who said that he looked like he was raising his hands for a moment), but then his anger or his pride got the best of him and he decided to make another wreckless decision, one that would cost him his life.

I can't see anything about the scenario of Brown charging at Wilson makes any sense.

But that's what the only credible witnesses say happened, and it's consistent with the distance at which Brown traveled back to Wilson (20ft). Taken together, there should be no doubt that Brown charged Wilson, whether in a rage or in self-defense. The other witnesses you're relying on were not discredited based on "nit picks" (really?). They told outrageous lies that were intended to paint Wilson in the worst light, and several of them were forced to admit that they lied after forensics exposed their accounts as bunk. Indeed, one of these "pro-Brown" witnesses flipped and corroborated part of Wilson's account, stating, "it appeared that his life was in danger", referring to Wilson. Here's what the DOJ had to say about her

"However, her reasons for being untruthful, coupled with the fact that she immediately changed course when her statements were challenged, give her account reliability. "

You also ignore the fact that Brown was high on drugs at the time, which affects judgement. This can be observed in his behavior at the supermarket where Brown perpetrated a strong armed robbery without any attempt to conceal his identity. He acted entitled and fearless, as if the laws didn't apply to him. Dorian Johnson, in his grand jury testimony, was stunned by this wreckless behavior and immediately put back the stolen cigars that Brown had handed him (this is seen on video). So the evidence establishes that Brown was high and that he engaged in very wreckless behavior just minutes prior to his encounter with Wilson, and here you are saying it's "ludicrous" for Brown to engage in more wreckless behavior during this confrontation.

Further, Wilson claimed that Brown said, "you're too much of a pussy to shoot me". We know from people who knew him that Brown was accustomed to using his great size to intimidate people, as he did to that clerk at the supermarket. Perhaps he thought he could intimidate a cop with a gun too -- banking on his great size to send Wilson cowering.

As for the arm wounds, from the DOJ report

"However, the concentration of bullet wounds on Brown’s right side is consistent with Wilson’s description that he focused on Brown’s right arm while shooting."

All bullets hit the right side, including the two ambiguous arm shots. That strongly indicates that all hit while Brown was facing Wilson.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Just now I had to check to see that I didn't accidentally read the middle of the thread over again.
0_Ó

 

[carlitos]

You are playing games however, and it hurts the overall message.



If the highlighted plus the guy being black is enough for you to put it on a list of brutality against blacks, then the list is meaningless. Besides that, making a very broad swath of incidence of violence against black people being racially motivated does increase the fear of people like that girl. You tell her there was a man with a toy sword who was shot because he was black, she'll believe you even though it's not true. You tell her a man was shot even though his hands were up simply because he was walking in a street, she'll believe you, even though that's not true either. But others will look at those and dismiss listening to your entire list because they already know it's not true. Don't cry wolf. It might feel like the more incidents you can pile together the better a case you have, but in mixing in poor quality ones you give people an excuse to tune out.



Keep in mind, there is a long list of actual racially motivated incidents that have good evidence for being so, and you have no need to inflate the list with questionable ones. Besides that, the evidence the DoJ lays out is much more better quality evidence than anecdotes. It is very difficult to prove any specific incident is racially motivated, or that it would have played out differently with different races. After all, we can't run the incident with a control. That's why aggregate numbers and analysis are so important.



Looking at those, and even keeping in mind confounding factors, it's fairly easy to prove there is still far too much racism effecting things. Racism is still a problem, and we can still make advances on in. But that doesn't mean any given incident is racism. That doesn't mean that people who disagree with your assessment that any given incident is racism is being racist themselves, disagrees with your overall point, or is 'playing games'.



Long story short, getting the details right is important.

:

 

[Mumbles]

Too many police do. Statistics are woeful in the US, so I have no idea about trends, but with the increase in phones with video, a lot of stories are now coming out that would otherwise have remained unreported.

On the question of lack of training, there is little reason to suppose Ferguson is not typical of many similar forces. The inadequate training there is mentioned as one problem there and one that leads to excessive use of force.


The UK is far from perfect (the Ian Tomlinson case was an example where someone should never have been re-employed by the Met) and too few police officers are found guilty even when there are cases of unlawful killing, however we do know how many people die after contact with the police.

The whole "Summer of he Shark" analogy is actually good one, though not for the reaso =n Wildcat think it is. Much like in Ferguson, militarized police tand rioting segregregationists were well-known for attacking not only protestors and rndom black people, but also news reporters, the most famous of which is likely the execution of Paul Guihard. So, in his own way, he's absolutely right that what we're seeing now is no sort of anomaly.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you understand what the word "and" means?

Oh, semantic games and still no evidence?

Look again. The guy on top of the military vehicle is wearing a tactical jacket.

Now, when was the first looting "and" burning in Ferguson? Was it before or after August 9, 6:25 PM?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Any evidence, other than the so called 'witnesses', that this happened in the fashion you claim, at all?

The witness was credible. The police department has a reputation of just this kind of behavior. There is no evidence Wilson politely asked the men to move to the sidewalk. There is evidence the encounter was confrontational.

 

[Wolrab]

The witness was credible. The police department has a reputation of just this kind of behavior. There is no evidence Wilson politely asked the men to move to the sidewalk. There is evidence the encounter was confrontational.

Why would Wilson need to be polite? We don't know the tone of what he said. Both Brown and Johnson probably used the F bomb themselves and certainly wouldn't be shocked by its use.

You are doing an abysmal job of making Wilson into a monster.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It really is hard to believe my eyes, reading that guilt by association is valid when used against police but terrible, terrible when used against black people.

Just to be clear here, guilt by association differs from evidence of being part of a group. If I'm out on a date with a racist cop, that's an association. If I'm a cop in an identified racist police department, that is not an association, that is being part of a group, ergo you are likely to have the same characteristics as that group.

As for assumptions we can make about Brown, he was a petty criminal. He fought with the cop at the vehicle. He ran from the cop. None of that, and not other common traits of petty criminals that are also black, suggests one is in a group that is going to come charging at a cop that is 30 feet away and shooting a gun.

Where are this stereotypical young black men that you have evidence it is common for them be so out of control they come charging at a cop with a gun? Fighting with a cop, sure. Running away not respecting the cop's authority, yep. But acting like a madman charging at a cop dozens of feet away with his gun not only drawn, but discharged once already? I don't picture that fitting in this group association you want to put Brown into.

Do you have examples where charging in out-of-control-anger at a cop shooting at one is indeed something young black men commonly do?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would Wilson need to be polite? We don't know the tone of what he said. Both Brown and Johnson probably used the F bomb themselves and certainly wouldn't be shocked by its use.

You are doing an abysmal job of making Wilson into a monster.

It's called, not needlessly provoking a confrontation. A cop that is confident in his position doesn't need to start a confrontation with two young men who are doing nothing worse than jaywalking on a small residential street.

"Hey guys, could you please move to the sidewalk?"

What would you do? You'd move to the sidewalk.

Vs: "Get the 'F' on the sidewalk."

It's just rude, there was no reason for it. No wonder people in that neighborhood don't like the police.

Now you've set the tone for a confrontation. You screech your vehicle back and spin it around in the way. More needless confrontation because you are on a power trip.

Why not call for back-up, pull over calmly so as to not tip the two off they fit a robbery description, and when your back-up gets there, calmly approach the two? Wasn't screeching back and almost losing control of your gun bad policing?


I don't need to make Wilson into anything. He killed a teenager needlessly. Pretty sure he made his own bed.

 

[Giz]

Just to be clear here, guilt by association differs from evidence of being part of a group. If I'm out on a date with a racist cop, that's an association. If I'm a cop in an identified racist police department, that is not an association, that is being part of a group, ergo you are likely to have the same characteristics as that group.

No. Just no.